Duplicate Copy Of Case File Of Property Attached Under UP Gangster Act Must Be Retained For Reference In Future Release Applications: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court set aside the Order by the Special Court which had rejected the representation of the Petitioner for the release of the seized vehicles.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the State Government to ensure that when a case is first referred to a Court, a duplicate copy of the case file of property attached under the UP Gangster Act must be retained by the authority for reference in future release applications.
The Court set aside the Order by the Special Court which had rejected the representation of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (Petitioner) for the release of the seized vehicles. The Petitioner, an NBFC, had filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of their representation under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the Act) contending that the vehicles in question were not part of the attachment Order.
A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that “we are of the view that the State Government should take immediate appropriate measures so that in every case where the competent authority, for the first time, refers the matter to the court having competence to deal with the release aspect as per Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a complete duplicate photostat copy of the case file be retained by the authority in his office and whenever further representations seeking release come up before the authority, aid of the previous proceedings be taken.”
Advocate Kartikeya Saran appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner had argued that since the vehicles were not attached under the attachment Order, the Commissioner was not justified in refusing to release the vehicles. It was further submitted that the Commissioner was not vested with the power to reject a release application/ representation.
It was contended that whenever a representation under Section 15 of the Act was made seeking release of the property attached, the Authority can either release the property or if he is of the opinion that release cannot be ordered, he is obliged to refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court explained, “Section 15(2) read with Section 16(1) would make it clear that whenever a representation seeking release of the attached property comes before the District Magistrate, he has two options; firstly, in case, he is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and make over the property to the claimant; or, secondly, in the reverse situation, when the District Magistrate is not inclined to release the property for any reason, he shall prepare a report and make a reference to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act.”
“It is, therefore, clear that when the order impugned in the writ petition was passed rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner, the matter had already been referred to the competent court two months prior thereto and, as a matter of fact, the entire file was sent through reference. Therefore, it is surprising as to how the petitioner’s representation dated 24.05.2024 was entertained by the Commissioner, who had become functus officio after making a reference by transmission of the file to the competent court,” the Bench noted.
“Measures should also provide that the associated staff in the office of the competent authority is under obligation to place every representation along with previous record before the authority and not separately. Such measures, if taken, shall certainly rule out not only institution of proxy or collusive proceedings but also prevent abuse of process of law so that no order is obtained by misleading the authority in absence of complete record,” the Court remarked.
“Once we are satisfied that the scope of making claim for release is comprehensive under the scheme of the Act of 1986 and any person whose interest appears to be involved in the case is to be heard by the competent court, particularly as per Section 16(3)(a) of the Act, we are of the view that in the instant case, the Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 as she had become functus officio after making a reference in July, 2024,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “Having not done so, the order impugned is in teeth of the statutory provisions and we deem it appropriate that the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2024 be placed before the court concerned pursuant to the reference order dated 23.07.2024 for decision on merits…Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 20.09.2024 is set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:28895-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Kartikeya Saran and Srishti Gupta
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal
